The iatrogenic consequences of medicalising grief: Resetting the research agenda

The iatrogenic consequences of medicalising grief: Resetting the research agenda 
Sociology of Health & Illness: by Sarah Gurley-Green, Lisa Cosgrove, Milutin Kostic, Lauren Koa, and Susan McPherson; published 11/28/25, distributed via Evermore 1/28/25
When the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was published in 2013, there was a firestorm of controversy about the elimination of the bereavement exclusion. Proponents of this change and of the proposed “complicated grief” designation believed that this change would help clinicians recognise major depression in the context of recent bereavement. Other researchers and clinicians have raised concerns about medicalising grief. In 2022 “prolonged grief disorder” (PGD) was officially included in the DSM-5-TR in the trauma- and stressor-related disorders section. ... As human rights activists have argued, bereavement support is an inalienable human right, one that is centered on the right to health and well-being, for “bereavement health is as intrinsic to our humanity as any other aspect of health and citizenship” (Macaskill 2022). That is why there are increasing calls for investing in bereavement as a public good and for “cultivat[ing] a bereavement-conscious workforce.” (Lichtenthal et al. 2024, e273). As Lichtenthal notes, it is not only clinicians but also institutions and systems that must “shift bereavement care from an afterthought to a public health priority.”
Editor's note: "Iatrogenic" refers to unintentional consequences/condition from a medical intervention. In the hospice context, this means bereavement/grief from the hospice death. How many patients do you serve? The CMS Hospice Conditions of Participation address "bereavement" and/or "grief" 155 times. What priority do you give to bereavement care before, at and after your patients' deaths? What can you improve?